[req2]

I don't think you've defended your position as well as you think you have, and you didn't need to stoop to the "liberal Godwin". He implies a pretty basic definition of evil- that which hurts everyone else. It's not given that this is better for newspapers than open search engine access, nor that this preserves the production of "beneficial" news.

[kirubakaran]

It is interesting how this modern Godwin ("You know who else abused the term 'evil'? That's right, Bush did!"), which itself is in a way a Godwin as it 'ends the discussion' by equating Bush to Hitler. If that is what you want, it is mission accomplished. Oops, that doesn't mean what it used to.

[biznerd]

You've made no effort to argue with me, you've merely tried to deconstruct my argument like I was writing a proof in a ethics class.

Unfortunately this is hacker news, not philosophy news. Provide a counter-argument that is based on the topic because I have no desire to argue with a troll trying to sound smart.

[req2]

You're hasty applying the troll label, and slow to support any of your arguments.

As I mentioned above, "It's not given that this is better for newspapers than open search engine access, nor that this preserves the production of "beneficial" news."

Can you explain why media companies "greatly benefit" from being excluded from major search engines? Can you show why this means that "beneficial" investigative journalism continues, increasing the overall welfare of citizens moreso than open access for search engines? For that matter, can you show that newspapers do more "long form" and expose more government corruption than bloggers do in aggregate? What if newspapers accept this deal and transition to more "blog" articles and fewer "investigative" articles, leaving citizens with "no" investigative articles and no single search destination?

Being first mover doesn't give you the right to assert every piece of your argument.

[biznerd]

"Being first mover doesn't give you the right to assert every piece of your argument."

I'm not. You're just playing devil's advocate. The way you are responding, you have no interest in actually debating the idea.

Can you explain why media companies "greatly benefit" from being excluded from major search engines?

First of, Microsoft is providing an option for beleaguered newspapers. More options is universally better than less options right?

Second, they're getting cash. And the newspaper companies (struggling with shrinking advertising and layoffs) are seriously considering the cash. So it seems the media thinks that cash is more beneficial.

Can you show why this means that "beneficial" investigative journalism continues, increasing the overall welfare of citizens moreso than open access for search engines? For that matter, can you show that newspapers do more "long form" and expose more government corruption than bloggers do in aggregate?

Yes. I'm not sure how to exactly prove this in an excel spreadsheet for you.

What if newspapers accept this deal and transition to more "blog" articles and fewer "investigative" articles, leaving citizens with "no" investigative articles and no single search destination?

Completely irrelevant to the argument at hand. Microsoft would have no hand in this.